TOPIC:

COPING WITH VULNERABILITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD IN CENTRAL GONJA: CASE STUDY BUIPE AND

YAPEI

PRESENTED BY THERESA DARI, Dr Dacosta Aboagye and Joseph Koomson

OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

Introduction Operational Definitions Problem statement Research questions Objectives Hypotheses Methodology Findings and Discussions Conclusions Recommendation

INTRODUCTION In November 2010, 55 communities in the Central Gonja district

were affected by floods.

At Buipe,12,418 people displaced, 1,196 houses and 81 acres of farms destroyed, cost of GH¢ 86,044.

At Yapei, 784 people displaced, 298 acres of farms destroyed,

cost of GH¢ 56,720 (NADMO, 2010).

Communities were affected by floods in 2003, 2007 and 2009.

Coping is the process of continuing on after flooding and involves resistance and resilience .

Introduction Cont’ Remedial actions undertaken by people whose survival

and livelihood are compromised or threatened. Strategies could be erosive, non-erosive and failed

strategies (WHO, 1999). Strategies vary by region, community, social group,

gender, age, season and time in history and are deeply influenced by the people's previous experience (WHO, 1999).

Blaikie et al. (1994) argued that resistance and resilience depends on demographic characteristics and access to key assets.

Access Model Blaikie et al. (1994).

7 Social Relations and flows of resources

Household 1

•Improved social relations

Household 2

•Better social relations

1a households 1 and 2

b. Resources and Assets

•Land

·Livestock

·Skills

·Labor

·Capital

·Fishing Nets

·boats

2 structures of domination

Income opportunities

•Crop farming

·Fishing

·Animal farming

·Pasturing of animals

·Casual labor

Access Qualification

•Gender,

·Ethnicity, Age,

·Social network, wealth, power

·Skills

6 Decisions and outcome decisions

Household 1

•Borrowing from relations

·Sale of assets

Households

•Acquisition of assets like animals, land, stocks of food

·Savings and investment

5Household budget

Household 1

•Deficit

Household 2

•Surplus

4 Livelihood

A. Household 1

•Shelter

·Water

·food

B. Household 2

•Shelter

·Water

·Food

3 Choice of households (access profile)

A Household 1

•Subsistence farming

·Pasturing of animals

·Casual labour

B Household 2

•Commercial crop and animal farming

·fishing

PROBLEM STATEMENT Buipe (8,347), Yapei, 4,044 people (PHC, 2000).

Population growth rate, 3.1%

Buipe and Yapei are located along the Black and White Volta respectively.

Mean annual rainfall ranges 1,000 mm and 1,500 mm (GMA, 2010).

Map of Study Area

Problem Statement Cont’Buipe and Yapei have had a long history of the

occurrence of flood (1974, 1979, 2003, 2007, 2009 and 2010).

In 2003, at Yapei, 279 were displaced, 223 acres of crops destroyed, estimated value of GH¢1,750.

In Buipe, the floods displaced 444 people and 42 houses were destroyed, estimated value of GH¢ 24,000 (NADMO, 2003).

Problem Statement Cont’ Annual rainfall 1,000 to 1,500mm per year, and monthly

averages have not changed dramatically, The people who have long experience with flooding should

develop methods of mitigating their impacts. If flood victims continue to suffer heavy losses, then explanations must be forthcoming.

increased flood disaster be attributed to human processes. contextual or external influences have affected peoples’

capacities to cope with flood. how decreasing access to and deteriorating conditions of

key assets has increased human vulnerability to flooding in the Central Gonja district.

Research Questions What are the effects of gender on access to livestock and

education?

What are the effects of age on access to savings, loans and social network?

How does religious affiliation affect access to social network and education?

What are the effects of ethnicity on access to land and secured houses?

What are the differences in vulnerability between the two communities?

ObjectivesObjectives of the Study Demonstrate how socio-demographic characteristics of the

people of Buipe and Yapei affect access to key assets and their ability to cope with vulnerability to flooding.

Specific Objectives The effects of gender on access to Livestock and education. The effects of age on access to savings, loans and social

network. The effects of religious affiliation on access to social network

and education. The effects of ethnicity on access to land and secured houses. The differences in vulnerability between the two communities.

Hypotheses

Gender does not influence access to education. Age does not influence access to savings. Age does not affect access to loans. Age does not influence access to social network. Religious affiliation does not influence access to

education. Religious affiliation does not influence access to social

network. Ethnicity does not affect access to land.

Methodological Approach Units of analysis (households and communities.)

Probability sampling technique.

Multi stage cluster sampling used for the selection of the sample units.

Simple Random and Systematic

Twelve per cent was used as the sample size

Methodological Approach Cont’

At Buipe, 1264 households, at Yapei, 542 (2000, PHC)

Sample size was 152 at Buipe and 65 at Yapei

Primary and secondary sources of data

Cross tabulations and Chi square

Gender and Access to Human and Physical Capital

Human capital (Education), Physical capital (Livestock)

At Buipe, males constituted 65.1 % and 34.9 % were females.

At Yapei, Males constituted 83.08 % and females constituted 16.92 %.

Gender and Access to Education at Buipe and Yapei

Gender Education

No Education

(%)

Primary (%) JSS (%) SSS (%) Tertiary (%)

Buipe Yapei Buipe Yapei Buipe Yapei Buipe Yapei Buipe Yapei

Male 59 83 15 6 15 9 6 2 5 0

Female 87 100 7 0 6 0 0 0 0 0

Gender does not affect access to education

Chi Square Test Community

Buipe Yapei

Value 14.126a 2.128a

Df 4 3

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 0.007 0.546

Gender and access to Livestock • Livestock are important source of income and means of

wealth accumulation . General pattern is for men to own large livestock and particularly, work animals, while women own smaller livestock and yard animals (Doss et al., 2008).

Gender

Livestock

Own (%) Do not own (%)

Buipe Yapei Buipe Yapei

Male 43 72 57 28

Female

43 55 57 45

Recovery Rate at Urban and Rural Centre

Gender Recovery Rate

Less than a year (%) More than a year (%)

Buipe Yapei Buipe Yapei

Male 67 41 33 59

Female 23 0 77 100

Age and Access to Financial and Social Capital

Financial Capital (savings, loans) Social capital (social network and household relations) At Buipe, less than sixty years represented 75 % whiles

60 years and above constituted 25 % of the population. At Yapei, 58.5 % of the population were below sixty years

and 41.5 % were sixty years and above The elderly tend to lack efficient income or capital

reserves which restrict them from accessing certain forms of formal government aid or qualifying for low-interest building loans (Bolin, 1986; Alexander, 1997; Mileti, 1999; Morrow, 1999).

Age and access to financial Capital at Urban and rural

• Age groups Savings Loans

Saves (%)

Do not save (%)

Accessed loans (%)

Did not access

loans (%)

Buipe Yapei Buipe

YapeiBuipe Yapei Buipe Yapei

Less than

6054

11

46

89

45

8

55

92

60 years

and above 26

11 74

89

53

4

47

96

Age does not influence access to financial capital

Age does not influence access to savings

Pearson Chi-

Square

Community

Buipe Yapei

Value 9.007a 0.006a

Df 1 1

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

0.003 0.940

Age does not influence access to loans

Pearson

Chi-Square

Community

Buipe Yapei

Value 0.714a 0.480a

Df 1 1

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

0.398 0.488

Age and access to social capitalAge and access to social capital at Buipe and Yapei

Age

groups

Count and percentages

Received help

(%)

Did not receive

help (%)

Buipe Yapei Buipe Yapei

Less than

60 years

25 13 75 87

60 years

and above

24 26 76 74

Age does not affect access to social capital

Pearson Chi-

Square

Community

Buipe Yapei

Value 0.047a 1.014a

Df 1 1

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

0.829 0.314

Pictures of Places occupied by flood Victims

A tent occupied by flood victims School occupied by flood victims

Recovery rate among the age groups at Buipe and Yapei

Age groupsCounts and Percentages

Less than a year (%) More than a year (%)

Buipe Yapei Buipe Yapei

Less than 60

years 56 40 44 60

60 years and

above 37 26 63 74

Religion and Access to Social and Human Capital

Human capital (Education) Social Capital (social network and household relations

represents social capital). Christianity, Islamic and Traditional are the main religious

groups in the study areas. At Buipe, Christians represented 18.4 per cent, Muslims

represented 80.3 per cent while the traditionalist constituted 1.3 per cent of the population.

At Yapei, Islamic religion constituted the largest, 95.4 per cent while Christianity represented 4.6 per cent.

None of the respondents indicated a traditional religion.

Religion and Education• Academic expectations, level of educational attained, school

attendance, and academic performance are all positively affected by religious practice, (Fagan, 2006).

•

• Religion Counts and percentages

None Primary JSS SSS Tertiary

Buipe

Yapei

Buipe

Yapei

Buipe

Yapei

Buipe

Yapei

Buipe

Yapei

Christianity

46

100

21

0

18

0

11

0

4

0

Islamic 74 85 10 3 11 5 2 2 3 0

Traditional50

50

0

0

0

Religion does not affect access to Education

Pearson Chi-Square Buipe Yapei

Value 12.639a 0.505a

Df 8 3

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

0.125 0.918

Religion and Access to social capital

Religion and access to social capital at Buipe and Yapei

Religion Social Capital

Received help

(%)

Did not receive help

(%)

Buipe Yapei Buipe Yapei

Christianity 18 0 82 100

Islamic 27 19 73 81

Traditional 0 100

Religion does not affect access to social capital

Pearson Chi-Square

Buipe Yapei

Value 1.702a .786a

Df 2 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

0.427 0.375

Recovery Rate among Religious groupsReligion Counts and Percentages

Less than a Year (%) More than a Year (%)

Buipe Yapei Buipe Yapei

Christianity57 0 43 100

Islamic51 35 49 65

Traditional0 100

Ethnicity and access to Physical and natural capital

Physical capital (secured house) Natural capital ( land). At Buipe, Natives(32%), Migrants (68%) At Yapei, natives(80%), migrants (20%)

Ethnicity and access to physical capital

At the urban center, 61% of the natives and 64% of migrants own houses

39% of natives and 36% of migrants do not own houses. 37% of natives and 23% of migrants own houses built of

cement blocks. 63% of natives and 77% of migrants own houses built of

mud. At Buipe, 47% of natives and 30% who rent live in houses

built of cement. 53% of natives and 70% who rent live in houses built of

mud.

Ethnicity and access to physical capital Cont’

At the rural center, 96% of natives and 92% of migrants own houses

6% of natives own houses built of cement. None of the migrants own houses built of cement.

94% of natives and all migrants who own houses are built of mud

4% of natives and 8% of migrants live in rented houses. None of those who rent live in cement houses.

Pictures of mud and cement houseBlock houses been able to withstand floods Collapsed mud houses

Ethnicity and access to natural capital at Buipe and Yapei

Race and ethnicity imposes language and cultural barriers that affect access to post-disaster funding and residential locations in hazard prone areas (Pulido, 2000; Peacock, Morrow, and Gladwin 1997, 2000; Bolin with Stanford 1998; Bolin 1993). Ethnicity Counts and percentages

Land (%) Landless (%)

Buipe Yapei Buipe Yapei

Natives 69 56 31 44

Migrants 26 23 74 77

Ethnicity does not affect access to land

Pearson Chi-Square Buipe Yapei

Value 36.259a 8.346a

Df 8 7

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 0.000 0.303

Ethnicity and Rate of Recovery at Buipe and Yapei

Ethnicity Recovery rate

Less than a year (%) More than a year (%)

Buipe Yapei Buipe Yapei

Natives 73 39 27 61

Migrants 37 15 63 85

Conclusion Natural events are not sufficient to explain human

vulnerability to environmental hazards but rather social processes in both communities causes human vulnerability to floods.

Respondents at Buipe had a better access to key assets than the respondents at Yapei

Concludes that the inability of the people to prevent the consequences of flood events is as a result of lack of access to key assets which prevents their ability to anticipate, resist and recover from flood impacts.

Recommendation Intervention efforts should be designed to build up the assets.

Some writers suggest that intervention efforts designed to build up the assets of the poor to withstand shocks will be increasingly important to reducing the human burden from flooding (Sanderson, 2000).

Again, NADMO and the District Assemblies should design strategies to strengthen the coping strategies of the local people towards floods.

As put by Blaikie et al., (1994) interventions to strengthen capacities to cope is also a positive step towards the empowerment of communities rather than the reinforcement of dependency associated with flood relief efforts.

References Alexander, D. (1997). The study of natural disasters 1977-

1997: some reflections on a changing field of knowledge. Disasters 21, 284-304.

Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. (1994). At Risk: Natural hazards, peoples, vulnerability and disasters, Routledge, London.

Bolin, R. (1993). Household and Community Recovery after Earthquakes. Boulder Colorado Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Colorado.

Bolin, R. and Stanford, L. (1998). The Northridge Earthquake: Vulnerability and Disaster. Routledge, London.

References

Doss, C., Grown, C. and Deere, C.D. (2008). Gender and Asset Ownership: A Guide to Collecting Individual-Level Data, Policy Research Working Paper 4704.

Fagan, P. (2006). Why Religion Matters Even More: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability, The Heritage Foundation, Washington D.C.

Ghana Meteorological Agency, (GMA). Annual Rainfall Figures for Yapei and Buipe, 2000-2010, Accra.

Ghana Statistical Service, 2000 Population and Housing Census. Summary Report of Final Results, Accra, Ghana.

References Morrow, B.H. (1999). Identifying and mapping

community vulnerability. Disasters, 23(1): 1–18. National Disaster Management Organization (2010).

Flood statistics for Buipe and Yapei, 2003 -2010, Buipe, Ghana

Peacock, W. Morrow, B. H. and Gladwin, H. (eds). (1997). Hurricane Andrew and the Reshaping of Miami: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Socio-Political Ecology of Disasters, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

References

Sanderson, D. (2000). Cities, disasters and livelihoods, Environment and Urbanization 12(2), 93- 102.

World Health Organization (WHO). (1999). Emergency Health training Programme for Africa, WHO/EHA/EHTP, Addis Ababa

THANK YOU